About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
, a case on the constitutionality of the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. you can listen to those arguments on tuesday and wednesday evening at 8 p.m. on c-span. >> we could take pictures of the brain with mri scans and see the whole thing. there is an enormous gap in between of how the circus in the brain functions in order to be able to move my hands or look at you and process that information or to lay down in memory. we do not know how that works. with technologies yet to be invented, a lot of this of the technology developed. a lot of this will be nanotechnology. we will be able to record from a be hed
incomparable in the house. the idea that it drove the adoption of doma -- >> it was an election year and a people do not have the political power to protect themselves. >> i want to ask whether, are there any intermediate positions between striking doma down entirely end up holding? i do not think so. >> you said that there are different cases. they are. statesstion is, do these have the authority to retain the traditional state of marriage? not that they have to. need a? it is the question on both. >> not asking you to yield their position. are there any interim positions in the case that the court could find between on the one hand doing what they suggested, to stay -- say the states have the full power to uphold or to change or do anything was same- sex marriages? and what the strongest view of the challengers is in prop. 8 our calls distinguishes unconstitutional. is a standing argument. >> it would be in a weird way. it would probably mean that there be marriage equality restored in california. >> why? quiet the judgments stays in effect. the that is clear at all. it is more tha
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
, that is continuing to finance the defense of doma, it is a matter of policy -- >> confusing things here. let's not confuse the issue administration must position that it was unconstitutional. it was not their role to decide what was constitution. it was a lot that was signed into president -- into law by president clinton, and in our system of government, the administration does not get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. our defense of the lawsuit is to make sure the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what is not. to circle back -- [indiscernible] i wanted to ask you about the debt limit. weeks off, then back for three weeks. >> are you going to stick for dollar for dollar? but dollar for dollar is the plan, and we have had some discussions, but not any big discussions at this point. >> you perceive this whole budget issue, the sequester, has all been pushed up to august, are you open that those conversations with the president, are we gearing down for a showdown in august? >> we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester w
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
a man and woman. en wednesday a case on the constitutionality on doma. you can listen to these on tuesday and wednesday evening at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> to believe in something that is so right, so dear, so necessary, you have to get in trouble. before we got in trouble, we studied. we didn't wake up one morning and say we're going to go is it in. we didn't just dream we're going to come to washington to washington and go on a freedom rite or we were going to march. we studied. we prepared ourselves. >> they say black power. they intimidated so many people, white people in particular by using that phrase black power. because when they use that word plaque power it made many people think black power meant destruction, blowing up the statute of liberty or ground zero, stroig america. it wasn't about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america. t was about having a new paradigm how we could be as we were doing the pledge in school the land of the free, the home of the brave. >> john lewis and john carlos discuss their personal experiences during the civil rig
and the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern, and you can hear the as soon asnts on -- the audio is released and these will be air at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on tuesday, a justice department official told a house judiciary subcommittee that the government is open to the idea of requiring warrants for obtaining electronic communications during criminal investigations but added that there are situations where the warrant should not be required. the hearing was looking at revisions for the 1986 electronic communications privacy act. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for the opening statement. the electronics privacy at this complicated and outdated, and largely unconstitutional. it made sense when it was drafted but the role of the internet and electronics communication in the daily lives is vastly different than it was during the reagan administration ended needed reforms to better protect privacy, to allow the growth of electronic c
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7